On Friday, the two American journalists primarily responsible for publishing the Edward Snowden documents arrived safely in the United States for the first time in nearly a year. Given their prominent role in making public the previously secret documents, many feared that Glenn Greenwald and Laura Poitras had indictments under seal and might be detained upon arrival on American soil.

According to a tweet by Ted Shaffrey, a video journalist for the Associated Press, Greenwald and Poitras landed at New York’s JFK airport today. Greenwald has lived in Brazil with his partner, David Miranda, for years, and Poitras lives in Berlin.

As a result of her filmmaking and journalism prior to Snowden, Poitras had been stopped about 40 times over the past six years.

On Twitter, Greenwald quipped: "That form of harassment stopped after after she finally went public: like roaches, they scamper from the light."

The journalistic duo traveled to New York in part to accept the George Polk award, a prestigious journalism prize, and dedicated it to Snowden.

That Greenwald and Poitras would visit the states again was never out of the question: in August 2013, a New York Times Magazine profile of the two reporters wrote, “They do not plan to stay away from America forever, but they have no immediate plans to return.”

Further Reading

For now, their precise plans and itinerary are publicly unknown, but Greenwald is scheduled to debate the former head of the National Security Agency, Michael Hayden, at an event in Toronto next month. Greenwald confirmed earlier this week on Twitter that he would be appearing in person.

Shaffrey also published a video on YouTube showing Greenwald, Poitras, and Miranda all together at JFK. In the 84-second video, Shaffrey asks Greenwald if he thought he would be arrested upon his return.

“No, otherwise I wouldn’t have come,” Greenwald told reporters. “We had a good sense that that wouldn’t happen. We weren’t 100 percent sure, and in fact we had counsel talk to the Justice Department and they purposely wouldn’t give them any information if we were the target of a grand jury or whether there was an indictment that was filed under seal. So they were clearly wanting us to stay in this state of uncertainty because I think that they thought that that benefited them in terms the journalistic choices we were making, to think that maybe choices that we made would swing the pendulum one way or the other.”

Shaffrey followed up by asking what gave Greenwald the confidence that he wouldn’t be taken into custody.

“Just the expectation that they wouldn’t be that incredibly stupid and incredibly destructive to try to something that in the eyes of the world would be viewed as so incredibly authoritarian that would forever undermine their ability to criticize other governments for imprisoning journalists and for having a constitutional fight over the First Amendment that successive administrations have wanted to avoid,” he said, before rejoining the rest of his party.

Greenwald has lived in Brazil with his partner, David Miranda, for years, and Poitras lives in Berlin.

What is the meaning of partner in this context and what is the story-related point of interest to such information? Does Poitras have a "partner"?

I would like to believe it is mentioned more as to relate it is his long term home where they have been for years, even before Snowden. I don't believe they are trying to incite gay bashing trolling. Articles often mention people's partners/husband/wifes/family with no ulterior motive. Can't rule it out, but just don't think that was the intent here.

Of course that doesn't mean certain people will stick to that one statement as if it were the most important part of the article. Some have a flare for the dramatic.

Glenn Greenwald has been living in Brazil (where he has a permanent visa*) for the past eight years with his partner, David Michael Miranda. Now that the Defense of Marriage Act has been struck down, Greenwald says they're considering moving back to the United States. Here's how he described his reason for moving in an interview with Out Magazine in 2011:

Brazil recognizes our relationship for immigration purposes, while the government of my supposedly "free," liberty-loving country enacted a law explicitly barring such recognition.

Greenwald has lived in Brazil with his partner, David Miranda, for years, and Poitras lives in Berlin.

What is the meaning of partner in this context and what is the story-related point of interest to such information? Does Poitras have a "partner"?

I would like to believe it is mentioned more as to relate it is his long term home where they have been for years, even before Snowden. I don't believe they are trying to incite gay bashing trolling. Articles often mention people's partners/husband/wifes/family with no ulterior motive. Can't rule it out, but just don't think that was the intent here.

David Miranda also made the news when he was detained at Heathrow under schedule 7 of the Terrorist Act but in reality, the authorities were just trying to send a message to Greenwald.

Greenwald has lived in Brazil with his partner, David Miranda, for years, and Poitras lives in Berlin.

What is the meaning of partner in this context and what is the story-related point of interest to such information? Does Poitras have a "partner"?

I would like to believe it is mentioned more as to relate it is his long term home where they have been for years, even before Snowden. I don't believe they are trying to incite gay bashing trolling. Articles often mention people's partners/husband/wifes/family with no ulterior motive. Can't rule it out, but just don't think that was the intent here.

Being paranoid about gay-bashing when talking about Greenwald (or anybody connected with Snowden) is like complaining wine staining your shirt, on the Titanic(the initial impact caused quite a jolt).

I didn't even notice the outrage until Ramie replied. I thought you were just wondering (like I was) if they meant 'business/creative/journalistic partner' or 'half of a legal couple that we can't call married or husbands or wives* because ...'.

Greenwald mentioned that they stopped holding Poitras at the border after the spotlight was shone on them. I do wonder if the relative power of their notability made them feel safe enough to bring any electronic equipment with them across the border, though.

There was never any chance they would get arrested. The shit show that would have ensued over the 1st Amendment and journalistic protections would have been - and I use this term correctly - on an epic scale.

I'm sure some people in the Government would love to arrest them, but they legally can't. There's nothing they could hold them for. For all the shit that the U.S. has deservedly been getting over the whole NSA scandal, we still have some of the strongest free speech laws in the entire world.

There was never any chance they would get arrested. The shit show that would have ensued over the 1st Amendment and journalistic protections would have been - and I use this term correctly - on an epic scale.

I'm sure some people in the Government would love to arrest them, but they legally can't. There's nothing they could hold them for. For all the shit that the U.S. has deservedly been getting over the whole NSA scandal, we still have some of the strongest free speech laws in the entire world.

Absolutely and to the extent that it encompasses far more than speech, for example money given to politicians.

There was never any chance they would get arrested. The shit show that would have ensued over the 1st Amendment and journalistic protections would have been - and I use this term correctly - on an epic scale.

I'm sure some people in the Government would love to arrest them, but they legally can't. There's nothing they could hold them for. For all the shit that the U.S. has deservedly been getting over the whole NSA scandal, we still have some of the strongest free speech laws in the entire world.

legally, we're not sure. it's not like there's not secret courts developing secret laws for the sole interest of protecting the institutions that Greenwald and friends are crapping all over. the optics of it would be pretty horrible though as both you and Greenwald point out, it would rid the US of the high ground they assume when speaking to China and Russia on their free speech/free press laws.

There was never any chance they would get arrested. The shit show that would have ensued over the 1st Amendment and journalistic protections would have been - and I use this term correctly - on an epic scale.

I'm sure some people in the Government would love to arrest them, but they legally can't. There's nothing they could hold them for. For all the shit that the U.S. has deservedly been getting over the whole NSA scandal, we still have some of the strongest free speech laws in the entire world.

legally, we're not sure. it's not like there's not secret courts developing secret laws for the sole interest of protecting the institutions that Greenwald and friends are crapping all over. the optics of it would be pretty horrible though as both you and Greenwald point out, it would rid the US of the high ground they assume when speaking to China and Russia on their free speech/free press laws.

This is just pure paranoia. The FISC doesn't have the jurisdiction to issue arrest warrants.

Greenwald has lived in Brazil with his partner, David Miranda, for years, and Poitras lives in Berlin.

What is the meaning of partner in this context and what is the story-related point of interest to such information? Does Poitras have a "partner"?

I would like to believe it is mentioned more as to relate it is his long term home where they have been for years, even before Snowden. I don't believe they are trying to incite gay bashing trolling. Articles often mention people's partners/husband/wifes/family with no ulterior motive. Can't rule it out, but just don't think that was the intent here.

Being paranoid about gay-bashing when talking about Greenwald (or anybody connected with Snowden) is like complaining wine staining your shirt, on the Titanic(the initial impact caused quite a jolt).

I didn't even notice the outrage until Ramie replied. I thought you were just wondering (like I was) if they meant 'business/creative/journalistic partner' or 'half of a legal couple that we can't call married or husbands or wives* because ...'.

I don't know if he was referring to just clarifying it and don't think he should be down voted. It wasn't a negative connotation really, was more of a 'is ars trying to point out that he is gay or actually referring to his partner in news?'. The point of my comment was more that I don't think either is the answer. I believe it is his relationship partner from the context and that Ars isn't trying to point it out for controversy, just an inclusion of fact to give more context for why they weren't in a rush to get into the US or elsewhere. They appear to actually live in Brazil, thus were not particularly concerned with entering the US or not.

There was never any chance they would get arrested. The shit show that would have ensued over the 1st Amendment and journalistic protections would have been - and I use this term correctly - on an epic scale.

I'm sure some people in the Government would love to arrest them, but they legally can't. There's nothing they could hold them for. For all the shit that the U.S. has deservedly been getting over the whole NSA scandal, we still have some of the strongest free speech laws in the entire world.

legally, we're not sure. it's not like there's not secret courts developing secret laws for the sole interest of protecting the institutions that Greenwald and friends are crapping all over. the optics of it would be pretty horrible though as both you and Greenwald point out, it would rid the US of the high ground they assume when speaking to China and Russia on their free speech/free press laws.

This is just pure paranoia. The FISC doesn't have the jurisdiction to issue arrest warrants.

When the government enjoys a court-sanctioned privilege to murder one of its citizens on a whim, paranoia is struggling to keep up with reality.

There was never any chance they would get arrested. The shit show that would have ensued over the 1st Amendment and journalistic protections would have been - and I use this term correctly - on an epic scale.

I'm sure some people in the Government would love to arrest them, but they legally can't. There's nothing they could hold them for. For all the shit that the U.S. has deservedly been getting over the whole NSA scandal, we still have some of the strongest free speech laws in the entire world.

legally, we're not sure. it's not like there's not secret courts developing secret laws for the sole interest of protecting the institutions that Greenwald and friends are crapping all over. the optics of it would be pretty horrible though as both you and Greenwald point out, it would rid the US of the high ground they assume when speaking to China and Russia on their free speech/free press laws.

No. We are legally sure. FISC doesn't have the authority or the balls to issue arrest warrants that contradict first amendment rights. There's a fine line between healthy paranoia and outright tin-foil hattery.

You have crossed way over that line. What has the U.S. done to stop any of this information from being published? You have the GCHQ over in the U.K. requesting the HDDs to be destroyed (for no reason) and what has the U.S. done? Nothing. We have no censorship laws. And don't even bother bringing up the "soldiers can't read classified information" because that's been around for decades. They've asked no websites to shut down, they've not forced any journalists to stop publishing the leaks (no matter how badly they may want them to). Also, what Nob Akimoto said above. FISC can't give arrest warrants.

There was absolutely, 100%, no chance they would be arrested.

The US Government does issue website shutdowns and related censorship all the time, the "trick" is, as it were, is to issue them from a copyright angle.

I take it you don't remember two years ago when The Department of Justice and Homeland Security's ICE offices used "Operation Save Our Children" to shutter 84,000 sites for being related to the sale of counterfeit goods (even if said sites only accidentally linked to a story about said sale of counterfeit goods, under very mysterious circumstances which may or may not be coincidental) and of course child pornography (which depending on who you ask is perfectly acceptable, I think it is disgusting, but those are just the gritty facts).

Not only that specific case, the FED has been used as a weapon for "copyright holders" to shutdown sites and operations all over the web without a trial, without due process, and without even notifying the owner. These instances should be handled by courts/trail, and never should the FBI/DHS be used as a sword to issue punishment before that process. You could also take a look over at Kim Dot Com for another example.

Who's to say they couldn't tell us they have a copyright on those files and have the same authority to arrest, detain and destroy the things you have on them? I mean, I guess I'm the only one who remembers Gizmodo's offices being raided by police officers and other government agents for having "found" an iPhone prototype. Doesn't that seem crazy to you? Why are tax paid government employees used as a weapon to punish alleged offenders of copyright holders before any charges are filed?

Headlines tomorrow: Greenwald and Poitras arrested while trying to cross the Canadian border.

You heard it here first, folks!

You were down voted several times, but there is a very real chance that Greenwald will be refused entry into Canada. A British Member of Parliament was denied entry after being accused of supplying humanitarian aid to Palestine. A hollow accusation of being a Brazillian spy (for reporting on Canada spying on Brazil) is enough to send him home.

While there appears to be some question amongst various commenters as regards the question of arrest, I think that Greenwald's reasoning is pretty sound. But....

And really, isn't that "But ...." one of the significant cards that the NSA is playing.

Despite the NSA's profound regret that their conduct no longer remains shrouded in secrecy, they are far from apologetic over their Sword of Damocles. The NSA will neither admit to culpability for their innumerable constitutional & legal violations, nor will they take steps to diffuse the tensions resulting from their continued, persistent surveillance.

It may be the alcohol but it appears after was repeated twice in his quote. Between that and the double that's I have a headache now. "thought that that benefited them in terms the journalistic choices we were making." This sentence really confused me also, which is an easy task.

I'm sure some people in the Government would love to arrest them, but they legally can't. There's nothing they could hold them for. For all the shit that the U.S. has deservedly been getting over the whole NSA scandal, we still have some of the strongest free speech laws in the entire world.

Did you miss the part where it said that she was harrassed/detained more than 40 times because of her journalistic work?

Greenwald has lived in Brazil with his partner, David Miranda, for years, and Poitras lives in Berlin.

What is the meaning of partner in this context and what is the story-related point of interest to such information? Does Poitras have a "partner"?

Given the ambiguity with which this word was used, I think that this is a perfectly valid question, and doesn't deserve all the down votes. While I may have had less trouble deducing the meaning, this is something that caught my eye as well.

Glenn Greenwald has been living in Brazil (where he has a permanent visa*) for the past eight years with his partner, David Michael Miranda. Now that the Defense of Marriage Act has been struck down, Greenwald says they're considering moving back to the United States. Here's how he described his reason for moving in an interview with Out Magazine in 2011:

Brazil recognizes our relationship for immigration purposes, while the government of my supposedly "free," liberty-loving country enacted a law explicitly barring such recognition.

That changed last year. US fiance and spousal visas are being given to same sex couples who are legally married (K-3, IR-1) or intending to marry (K-1) in a state that permits same sex marriage. http://www.uscis.gov/family/same-sex-marriages

There was never any chance they would get arrested. The shit show that would have ensued over the 1st Amendment and journalistic protections would have been - and I use this term correctly - on an epic scale.

I'm sure some people in the Government would love to arrest them, but they legally can't. There's nothing they could hold them for. For all the shit that the U.S. has deservedly been getting over the whole NSA scandal, we still have some of the strongest free speech laws in the entire world.

legally, we're not sure. it's not like there's not secret courts developing secret laws for the sole interest of protecting the institutions that Greenwald and friends are crapping all over. the optics of it would be pretty horrible though as both you and Greenwald point out, it would rid the US of the high ground they assume when speaking to China and Russia on their free speech/free press laws.

This is just pure paranoia. The FISC doesn't have the jurisdiction to issue arrest warrants.

You don't need the FISC to issue a 'secret' warrant. Just convince a judge with the power to issue the warrant that it needs to be confidential and they will amend the order to make it a 'sealed' decision ... a nondisclosure clause. which since no one is permitted to talk about the court order approving the warrant, effectively makes it a secret warrant.

Greenwald has lived in Brazil with his partner, David Miranda, for years, and Poitras lives in Berlin.

What is the meaning of partner in this context and what is the story-related point of interest to such information? Does Poitras have a "partner"?

Given the ambiguity with which this word was used, I think that this is a perfectly valid question, and doesn't deserve all the down votes. While I may have had less trouble deducing the meaning, this is something that caught my eye as well.

Glenn refers to David as his "partner" when mentioning him. Glenn is traveling with 2 other people, a second journalist and his partner ... no need to try to insert meaning. There is ambiguity due to the nature of English, but Glenn and David have never made a secret of their relationship, so it is clear to those who have read the many stories that included the fact that they are in a committed relationship. The additional information that would clarify the meaning of partner for readers new to the story is a sidebar item that is irrelevant to this news item.

The news is that they were admitted to US. What part does Poitras being an eligible bachelorette or not have to do with the story? David got mentioned because he is part of the party admitted without hassle. If Poitras has a partner/wife/husband/boyfriend/girlfriend in Berlin, they're not mentioned because that person was not traveling with this group.

There was never any chance they would get arrested. The shit show that would have ensued over the 1st Amendment and journalistic protections would have been - and I use this term correctly - on an epic scale.

I'm sure some people in the Government would love to arrest them, but they legally can't. There's nothing they could hold them for. For all the shit that the U.S. has deservedly been getting over the whole NSA scandal, we still have some of the strongest free speech laws in the entire world.

legally, we're not sure. it's not like there's not secret courts developing secret laws for the sole interest of protecting the institutions that Greenwald and friends are crapping all over. the optics of it would be pretty horrible though as both you and Greenwald point out, it would rid the US of the high ground they assume when speaking to China and Russia on their free speech/free press laws.

This is just pure paranoia. The FISC doesn't have the jurisdiction to issue arrest warrants.

I'm sure some people in the Government would love to arrest them, but they legally can't. There's nothing they could hold them for. For all the shit that the U.S. has deservedly been getting over the whole NSA scandal, we still have some of the strongest free speech laws in the entire world.

Did you miss the part where it said that she was harrassed/detained more than 40 times because of her journalistic work?

Harassed is not the same as arrested. They harassed her, because that's all those assholes could do.